2. Contact Info

3. Dealer Selection

While it’s still pretty frigid out there, it won’t be long before those deliciously curvy mountain roads, after a winter of dormancy, will be aching once again for a hot set of squealing tires. So, what are you waiting for? Can’t you hear the switchbacks calling? Stop dillydallying — shift gears and go.

But wait… we’re talking chicken before egg, here. First, we need some wheels, a car that gets the heart pounding and the adrenaline flowing, yet is frugal and practical to keep the stress down. Let’s set the parameters: Given that the economy is in the dumps, this car must possess a pricetag that doesn’t depress the recessionary bank account, let’s say a base sticker of around $25,000, give or take a couple grand. Further, despite the fact that fuel prices are under $2 per gallon, it can’t guzzle gas like a Hummer towing a Prius over the Rockies. Every penny saved at the pump makes a difference, and let’s not forget about the green factor, too. Second, such discretionary or impractical vehicles as 2+2 coupes and roadsters are out. This rig has to fulfill the multiple duties of family car, plaything, and daily driver; thus, more than two doors and room for at least four are essential. Finally, this jack-of-all-trades pocket-rocket ought to be fun to drive, whether in a straight line, through curves, around town, or all the way to Grandma’s house Life’s too short, right?

Luckily, many of today’s automakers are offering cars that meet the criteria, enabling us to put together a diverse arrangement of hatchbacks and sedans grown around the globe, including from England, Germany, Japan, and the USA. For this test, we gathered eight 2009 models: Chevrolet Cobalt SS, Dodge Caliber SRT4, Honda Civic Si, Mazdaspeed3, Mini Clubman S, Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart, Subaru Impreza WRX, Volkswagen GTI — seven of which feature turbocharged four-bangers and two of which sport dual- clutch automatics or all-wheel drive.

A game of high-low reveals the spreads for base price ($22,675-$27,185), power (172-285 hp), and combined fuel economy (20-29 mpg) are wide. Yet, competition within this eight-car grouping proved as tight as shrink-wrap. In fact, several editors, some of whom have been comparing cars for decades, felt this was one of the tightest fields… ever.

Which is why we subjected each vehicle to our full array of instrumented testing, a comprehensive 25-mile road loop near Malibu, and a full day of hot-laps at the Streets of Willow racetrack.

Ready to go? Let’s spring to action.

8th Place: 2009 Dodge Caliber SRT 4

The all-American cheeseburger of the group:unabashed, in-your-face presentation, high proteincount, but too sloppy and unwholesome for everyday consumption.

“A helluva fun way to move 48 cubic feet of stuff.”The Dodge Caliber SRT4’s made-in-Michigan 2.4-liter turbo four spins the SRT4’s front wheels with a judiciously torque-managed 285 horsepower and 265 pound-feet. That’s 20 hp up on the next-horsiest WRX, and it’s sufficient to whisk the chunky 3213-pound hatch to 60 mph in 5.8 seconds and on through the quarter-mile in 14.2 seconds at 102.1 mph with very little of the torque steer that has plagued most of the SRT4’s progenitors since the Omni GLH turbos. That savvy torque management is responsible for restricting the aforementioned elapsed times to fifth place in this test, while the quarter-mile trap speed is second-best. The pedals are well positioned for heel-and-toe footwork, the Getrag six-speed shifter’s mechanical detents are better defined than the Subaru WRX‘s, and the performance-display screen’s acceleration, braking, and lateral g readings are fun to play with.

There’s no mistaking the Dodge Caliber SRT4 for anything but an American sport-compact. The muscular, upright stance, the in-your-face grille and graphics, and the gigantic wheels and brakes all command attention — and these florid features aren’t mere decoration. The oversized air inlets in the front fascia cool the largest-in-test 13.4-inch front brake rotors and the turbo’s intercooler, the hood scoop is functional, and the rear spoiler trims lift. Even our self-appointed arbiter of aesthetics, lensman Vance found praise for the purposeful styling. More overt sportiness appears inside, where big chairs bear-hug the front-seat occupants, jumbo gauges are framed by a thick-rimmed steering wheel wrapped in a woven carbon-fiber-look material, and even the center-stack seems extra wide. Upright packaging and wagon-like folding seats make Caliber’s interior the roomiest and most versatile-unless of course you opt for the Kicker/SRT Livin Loud sound system ($675), which parks a giant subwoofer in the cargo area.

But it’s about here that we start to run out of nice things to say. The tuning of this 60/40 front/rear weight biased chassis can best be described as rudimentary. Steering feel is always heavy, so it’s hard to notice effort building with cornering forces. The front tires are quickly reduced to squealing understeer on the track and on demanding twisty roads the Caliber relies on its stability nanny to deliver the control that other cars derive from more sophisticated tuning of their spring rates, anti-roll-bar stiffness, and suspension geometry.

The stiff-legged suspenders sent the SRT4 bounding into the air in places where the WRX and GTI stayed nicely planted, and the ride quality is loud and flinty. The objective numbers bear our observations out, with the Caliber finishing a distant eighth in braking, figure-8 performance, and steady-state lateral grip.

As an exercise, we performed a statistical analysis of the most meaningful objective qualities of these eight cars, considering interior volumes, fuel economy, performance, price, etc., and the Caliber finished fifth. But the subjective experience left most of us agreeing with Kim Reynolds, who described the SRT4 as “a very coarse and crude automobile that is totally outclassed in this group.” It’s still a helluva fun way to move 48 cubic feet of stuff.

-Frank Markus

7th Place: 2009 Mini Clubman S

Even with a third door and an extended wheelbase, this Mini is cute as a button, miserly at the gas pump, and still a hoot to scoot around. Alas, it’s still too pricey.

“We squeezed nearly 26 miles out of a gallon of gas.”As soon the new Mini came to market, it set the benchmark for high-performance hatches. This made it a must to include anytime we brought together the hottest compacts for a comparison test. And if we had done this particular comparison two years ago, where more than two doors is a prerequisite, Mini would not have qualified. However, the Clubman, a newcomer to the Mini line for 2008, does, thanks to a third door on the passenger side. It also adds barn-style cargo doors in back, a 3.2-inch-longer wheelbase, and 10.2 inches more overall length.

It builds on many of the Mini’s positive attributes — cute, likeable style, fun attitude, and competent handling. Unfortunately, what negatives the Mini has tend to be exaggerated with this longer version. What was a marginally high priced Mini is more so with the Clubman (at more than $31,000, our tester was the highest-priced as-tested vehicle). It weighs more than the short-wheelbase Mini (and has the worst weight-to-power of test), and that bulk slowed it down when the clock was running. It took longest to reach 60 mph (6.7 seconds), 1.9 slower than the quickest-of-test WRX. No surprise, it also took the most time to complete the quarter mile. And it was third slowest on the road course at the Streets of Willow.

In many ways, the Mini was also a letdown on the road. Testers noted it suffers from torque steer and tends to understeer, and bumps and potholes unsettle the chassis. At 2832 pounds, the Clubman was the featherweight of the group (98 pounds lighter than the Civic), yet it felt heavy compared with other cars in this test (on the flip side, this sense give it a vaultlike solidity). The suspension is much too stiff for everyday driving, and the interior provides good looks but its poor ergonomics make it frustrating to live with. Knobs and controls aren’t intuitive; nor are their locations.

On the positive side, the editors liked the straight-line acceleration, shifter feel, and location of the pedals for heel-and-toeing. All were fond of the Clubman’s good looks and charming personality. And the added vehicle length makes the rear seat and cargo area much more useable than in the standard Mini. Best of all, it accomplishes all of this while achieving 34 mpg on the highway. While driving aggressively, we squeezed nearly 26 miles out of a gallon of gas — by far, the best of test. While not a winner of this comparison, this Clubman packs a lot of versatility, sportiness, and weekend fun in a small, highly efficient package.

– Allyson Harwood

6th Place: 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart

With 237 horses, AWD, and a dual-clutch gearbox, it’s as quick to 60 as an Evo MR. However, with the portliest body, it’s an Evo lite that’s a tad too heavy and blunt.

“The Ralliart is Mitsubishi‘s long-awaited answer to the Subaru WRX.”How in the world, you’re asking in head-shaking bewilderment, did a car that makes as much eminent sense as the 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart not, at the very least, make the cut into our comparison’s top four? Must have been some kind of mix-up in the paperwork process, you’re muttering. Well, now that the tire smoke has cleared from our octet’s asphalt battlefield, how about we go back and pick through the smoldering evidence for some forensic answers.

Going into this scrap, the Ralliart appeared to be holding an unusually strong hand of cards. In essence, the Ralliart is Mitsubishi’s long-awaited answer to the Subaru WRX. From its re-sculpted nose to its judiciously trimmed tail-wing, it appears to be the result of a great deal of very practical-minded sifting through its flagship Evo’s parts bin. And when any of the mighty Evolution’s especially desirable components appraised a little too dearly, Mitsubishi improvised more affordable, Ralliart-specific solutions. Think of the car as a much more serious package than common-grade Lancers, a solid-step ahead of the sport-oriented GTS and in many ways a far more livable set of solutions than the relentlessly brass-knuckled Evo.

What’s notable on the hardware roster? The Ralliart employs the Evo’s 2.0L block, but caps its revs at 6500 rpm instead of 7000. There’s a single-scroll turbocharger (not the Evo’s pair of spinners) and consequently a smaller intercooler. Not surprisingly, then, its power registers-in lower, at 237 ponies, 54 fewer than the Evo. But, notably, the Ralliart’s power max is achieved at 6000 rpm rather than 6500. And even more attractively, its torque number — 253 pound-feet (47 fewer than big brother) — is available at 1400 fewer revs (3000). Notable, as well, is the car’s trimmer curb weight, which scales about 175 pounds below Mr. Evo, but still manages to weigh-in as the heaviest of this group.

In the chassis department, there’s more evidence of hyper-rational thinking, as the Ralliart is shod with grippy 215/45R18 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A tires, which are put to good effect by stiffer front strut towers and revisions to the stock Lancer’s rear suspension. What’s most noticeably lacking, visa-vie the Evo, is the latter’s wide-stance front and rear tracks.

However, the coolest bit of hardware here is the standard (yes, standard) double-clutch transmission (named Twin Clutch Sport Shift) which is basically Evo-spec except for the absence of the latter’s S-Sport mode, plus some tweaking of the ratios to achieve better highway mileage (that said, the Ralliart delivered a lowest-in-test 17.0 mpg observed). The all-wheel-drive system is Evo-based as well, but in this case it hails from the previous Evolution IX, meaning it offers fewer electronic tricks.

Price? The Ralliart opens at $27,185. Compare that to a $38,985 double-clutch Evo — gads, it’s a jaw-dropping $11,800 less. That’s a lot of cash these days.

And what a compelling point then, to revisit our original question: why didn’t the Ralliart even break into the top four?

Well, while its price is a sizzling deal relative to the Evo’s, among its peers, it’s actually on the pricier side (though the double-clutch tranny does get thrown into the deal, remember). On the road, some of us felt the car’s chassis poise was at times lacking. A clanking in the front suspension certainly wasn’t reassuring and bumps tended to perturb the car’s cornering composure. When hard charging, the standard seats’ lateral support proved non-existent (the Recaro Sport Package, which solves this, costs $2750). The engine, though more than peppy enough, got occasionally boomy near redline, and the double-clutch transmission was sometimes abrupt in its machinations coming to a stop in automatic mode. Arguably, the interior’s material standard is sub-par in this field as well.

And it’s the rest of the field that’s really the Lancer Ralliart’s main problem here. For the most part, they’re really heavy-hitters — in many cases, take-no-prisoners-good. That doesn’t means we don’t like the Ralliart a lot. We emphatically do. It’s a kick to drive, a plausible option for drivers hankering for a taste of the street-racer scene but don’t want to unrelentingly suffer its consequences. Indeed, many of us would actually prefer its recipe of better ride quality and a less cacophonous interior to the Evo’s, regardless of the baby brother’s killer price advantage. And even performance disadvantage.

For a lot of folks, the Evo is simply the category’s ultimate alpha-male on wheels. And were the bank to say no to a $40K automobile loan, a Lancer Ralliart is the only imaginable substitute. The other seven cars in this group don’t even begin to illuminate their synapses.

And if you’re one of them, pal, here’s your winner. — Kim Reynolds

5th Place: 2009 Honda Civic Si

Part go-kart, part F1 car, the precision-built Civic Si, with its effortless short-throw six-speed and stratospheric 2.0-liter, is a thrill to drive — but only above 6000 rpm.

“A screaming, four-door Formula 1 car.”Buy a Honda Civic Si sedan and you get two cars. One, the Wallflower, lives from 0 to 6000 rpm; it’s a smooth-functioning, handsomely furnished machine with fine steering feel, a generally compliant (albeit firm) ride, and all the spiciness of skim milk. But push the tach needle into the narrow band between 6000 rpm (roughly where the i-VTEC valvetrain switches to its performance cam lobes) and 8000 rpm (the engine’s redline), and the Si transforms into a screaming, four-door Formula 1 car that’s as fiery as jalapeno wasabe.

“Wow! What an engine note,” writes technical director Frank Markus. “Equal parts angry hornet and formula bike — sounds awesome driving through tunnels.” Adds senior editor Ron Kiino: “One of the Civic’s coolest traits is that it not only feels racy, it sounds racy-unlike the Cobalt, which never sounds the part.” Add to the searing engine note a fabulous, light-switch six-speed manual and a chassis capable of cranking out 0.90 g of grip (second-highest in this comparo), and you have what Kiino dubs, “the most kart-like car in the group.”

Mind you, the Si’s dual personality has its drawbacks. Torque is virtually non-existent, just 139 pound-feet — and you have to wind out the engine to 6100 rpm to get it. Off the line and around town, the Civic Si feels asleep. Yes, the naturally aspirated engine (the only one in this test) is a marvel, delivering nearly 100 horsepower per liter at 7800 rpm, but at 197 ponies the Civic Si is next-to-last on the group’s power list. Zero to 60 mph performance — 6.6 seconds — is also seventh out of eight. It’s this lone weakness — the simple lack of grunt — that keeps the Si from finishing any higher than fifth.

It’s a shame, too. Every tester had praise for nearly every other aspect of the car. “Even after four years on the market, the Civic still looks fresh both inside and out,” logs Kiino. “In fact, I think it’s got the best exterior styling of the group.” Climbing aboard, technical editor Kim Reynolds says, “My first reaction is: Why are there two dashboards? The split-level thing takes some getting used to, but it makes sense in terms of keeping the steering wheel from obscuring the gauges, ease of eye focal length, etc.” Adds Markus: “Chassis reeks of sophistication, great steering feel, great shifter, nicely damped ride, immensely pleasurable on the track, and by far the most futuristic dash-which also happens to work ergonomically, too.” Kiino finishes by noting the Civic’s practical attractions: “For less than $25K as-tested (including navigation, satellite radio, etc.), the Si represents strong, strong value — especially considering Honda’s reliability and resale.”

Blessed with myriad virtues, yes, but the Civic Si sedan demands above-average driver involvement to shine fully. The question is, Do you want to get that involved?

– Arthur St. Antoine

4th Place: 2009 Subaru Impreza WRX

More power, stiffer suspension, and summer tiresrepresent a big improvement — just not big enough to eclipse the top three.

“Wow…it’s potent.”Just a year ago, the Subaru Impreza WRX was putting down 224 horsepower, a 0-to-60 sprint of 5.6 seconds, and a quarter-mile time of 14.3 at 94.7 mph. And with its spongy suspension, it could muster only 0.79 g of lateral acceleration. What a difference a year makes.

Subaru, fully aware that it had allowed its rallyesque street car to go soft, has made appropriate modifications for 2009, including a more robust 2.5L turbo engine (up 41 hp and 18 lb-ft, thanks to a bigger turbo and a larger-diameter exhaust), a stiffer suspension with larger anti-roll bars, and lower-profile summer tires in place of the previous all-seasons. Marked improvement? More like remarkable.

Zero to 60 now takes just 4.8 seconds with the quarter consumed in 13.5 at 101.1 mph, both represent nearly a full-second improvement and are only 0.1 behind the best times we’ve recorded from the 305-horse STI. Unsurprisingly, the WRX smokes all seven of its competitors in every acceleration measurement. “Wow…it’s potent,” says editor at large Arthur St. Antoine. “Didn’t expect so much kick.” Although it does sound “flatulent and unpleasant,” according to technical director Frank Markus, the Subie’s 2.5-liter churns out such stout midrange torque that third gear is about all that’s needed for track duty.

Handling? Compared to the 2008 model, the 2009 WRX is far stickier (0.85 g versus 0.79) and feels more composed when pushed. “Nicely planted on the road loop’s downhill twisties,” adds Markus. While firmer, the suspension is still supple enough for everyday liveability, per technical editor Kim Reynolds: “It just has a relaxed comfortableness about it that’s appealing.” That said, most judges deemed the suspension still too soft for confidence inspiring track activities. “There’s a bit more body roll and motion than might be optimal,” notes Markus, while St. Antoine has a stronger opinion: “Suspension is very soft, with tons of body roll in turns.” Nevertheless, the WRX managed to record the second-best lap time at the Streets.

Despite being the quickest at the dragstrip and the next speediest at the track, the WRX places fourth in part due to its less-than-invigorating suspension tuning but also because its five-speed, while perfectly acceptable for routine commuting, is often imprecise when attempting to shift swiftly; its boxer four “idles lumpy” and proved noisier than expected; and its styling, inside and out, was uninspiring in light of some others’. Unbelievably, within this collection of eight cars, fourth place is a strong finish.

3rd Place: Mazdaspeed3 Grand Touring

“Would happily ignore torque steer to have this car.”The last time we had a Mazdaspeed3 in a comparison test (November 2006), it handily outgunned a 2006 WRX TR-proof that Mazdas have hearty appetites for Subarus, not much has changed in two-plus years. Sure, the new WRX easily runs away from the Mazda, which takes 5.6 seconds to hit 60 and 14.1 at 100.6 mph to nab the quarter mile, but it can’t match the Speed3’s tactile sense from behind the wheel or its lateral grip (0.87 g versus 0.85). It even edges ahead in 60-to-0 braking (112 feet versus 113). The Mazda simply enjoys a pinpoint personality that’s rare among its peers.

“Steering feel is generally good and the suspension feels lively,” says St. Antoine. Reynolds agrees, noting, “Possesses a well-developed driving feel.” Indeed, the Speed3 displayed little trouble delivering the third-quickest lap time. According to our hot shoe, road test editor Scott Mortara, the Mazda offers a “great chassis with good grip, nice balance, sweet steering, and strong brakes.” On the road loop, however, over rough roads, the Mazda had some issues. “Bumps are traversed noisily and they upset this chassis more than others,” says Markus. Associate editor Allyson Harwood concurs: “The suspension got a little flummoxed over uneven surfaces.”

While the suspension didn’t love the road loop, the direct-injected 2.3-liter turbo four, with its best-in-test 280 pound-feet, did, dispensing a level of prowess rarely found in V-6s. “Fabulous engine,” opines St. Antoine. “It surges strongly from low revs and churns out torque in any gear. Top-gear acceleration is really sweet and you’re never lacking for oomph.” Harwood couldn’t object: “Geez, does it have power. There were times on this loop when I downshifted in particular spots out of habit, because I’d needed to in the other cars. In the Mazda, there was clearly no need: I could’ve stayed in a higher gear.” Better yet, this engine is as miserly as it is powerful, tying with the Civic Si for the second-highest observed fuel economy (22.1 mpg), just behind the 25.8 mpg from the 1.6-liter Mini.

On the downside, the Speed3 features a touchy shifter that had a few editors firing off expletives when they couldn’t engage third gear, an aged structure that doesn’t feel on par with the group’s best, wonky audio controls that drove us batty, and moderate torque steer that was mild in light of the Mini’s and Caliber’s but nevertheless unwelcome.

2nd Place: 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt SS

Best at the track, high on the fun-to-drive meter, and a bargain at checkout, but interior still screams rental car.

“Okay. I sheepishly admit I like this car.”If you think GM can’t build a great performance car (or just a great car, period), you’re forgetting about the Corvette ZR1 and the Cadillac CTS-V. Both will run circles around cars costing twice or thrice as much. You’re also forgetting about the Chevy Cobalt SS. Don’t worry, we don’t blame you: The Cobalt, certainly in non-SS trim, is as forgettable as Pete Best. Plus, given its minor exterior mods — 18-inch forged alloys, subtly sporty fascias, and a diamond-mesh grille — the SS doesn’t exactly shout, “I’m the baddest-ass little Chevy ever.” But it is.

You might not think that says much, but chew on this: At the track, the Cobalt was the quickest, lapping 0.4-second ahead of the next-closest WRX and over three seconds faster than the Civic Si; even with a relatively small 2.0-liter turbo, the Cobalt handed over the shortest 45-65 mph passing time (2.4 seconds); on the skidpad, it posted the highest lateral acceleration (0.91 g) and through the figure-eight test, it knocked out the best time (25.4 seconds at 0.68 g), nearly a second ahead of the WRX and almost two ticks in front of the Caliber SRT4. And the Cobalt SS holds the lap record for front-drive compact cars at the Nurburgring as well as nearly beating the Mitsu Evo MR around Laguna Seca in our October 2008 handling test. There are no doubts about it: The Cobalt SS is the real deal.

“Wow, is this a great little track car!” exclaims Markus. “Really came into its own at Willow, where the front-end bite (thanks to the limited-slip), engine power, strong Brembo front brakes, and supportive seats made hurling the SS through the bends a treat,” notes St. Antoine. Further, the SS’s novel no-lift shift feature is not only cool, but it downright works, and the StabiliTrak’s competition mode is as unobtrusive as a vacationing child-left-behind parent.Okay, so it’s a sweetheart on the track, but is it as lovable in the real world? “Pretty docile piece when the adrenaline’s off,” notes Markus, who adds, “Freeway ride is supple and tire noise modest.” “You could happily drive the SS on a long commute,” says St. Antoine. And speaking of long commutes, the Cobalt’s 2.0-liter achieves 30 mpg on the highway and recommends premium fuel but doesn’t require it as do the others.

Once the road loops were completed and the track went cold, the only aspects of the Cobalt that kept it from winning were its planet-size turning circle (39.4 feet), conservative exterior lines, light torque steer, and, most significant, low-rent cabin. “Cheap, cheap, interior,” says Reynolds. While functional and ergonomic, the SS’s interior lacks the richness of the Civic’s or the GTI’s.

Still, none of us could help but grow fond of the Cobalt. “Okay. I sheepishly admit I like this car,” states Markus. Even elder statesman Reynolds concludes, “The SS is a great (adolescent-level) performer for the money, maybe even the best bang-for-the-buck in the U.S. market from that perspective.” But would we own it? Says Harwood: “To own, though, and to live with, I’d still rather have the GTI.”

1st Place: 2009 Volkswagen GTI

“This is how you do a great sport hatch.”Midpack. That’s where the Volkswagen GTI resides in almost every objective measurement, be it 0 to 60 (6.0 seconds), quarter mile (14.6 at 94.9 mph), lateral acceleration (0.87 g), lap time (1 minute, 3.1 seconds), torque (207 pound-feet), cargo volume (14.7 cubic feet), curb weight (3183 pounds), or as-tested price ($26,839). In fact, there’s not one specification or calculated piece of data in which it ranked the highest or the lowest. Yet, subjectively…well, let’s just say it hits the sweet spot.

Around the real-world handling loop, the GTI wasn’t the biggest kick in the pants, but it was the best at keeping those pants unsoiled. “Sophisticated suspension,” judges Markus, “and very supple in the bumpy corners; never feels upset at all.” Laying down the gauntlet, St. Antoine notes, “Chassis is outstanding on the road; the VW glides over pavement that sent some of the cars [e.g. the Caliber] into the air. This is how you do a great sports hatch.” Moreover, each editor lauded the GTI’s delightful, linear steering (as well as the F1-like wheel), classy cabin (especially the plaid seat inserts), seamless dual-clutch gearbox, and small-but-mighty 2.0-liter turbo, which ranked just behind the Civic’s on the euphonic meter but tops on the smooth-and-flexible scale.

At the Streets of Willow, the Vee-Dub continued to impress as a capable, quick, and fun track tool, but, as Markus notes, it is “much more at home on the road than the track.” Per road-test editor Scott Mortara, “It feels a little heavy, struggles for traction coming out of corners, and the DSG is a bit slow to downshift.” St. Antoine relays similar impressions: “The DSG with paddles is excellent on spirited road drives, but it’s not so great when gunning around the track; the shift computer takes over when it shouldn’t-for instance, it’ll select third when you really just want a quick bounce off the rev limiter in second-and shifts aren’t as quick as, say, with the Ralliart’s.”

Even with its faults at the track, the GTI is the finest all-around car here — superior on the road, very good at the track, and respectable and plenty quick in our instrumented testing. Plus, the interior is a posh, ergonomic delight. The price, at $24,240 to start, is right on. And the exterior styling, despite being four years old, still looks rich and purposeful.

Reynolds succinctly sums it up best: “Well, I like this baby a lot.” We all do, which is why it’s the spring fling we’d all take home.

2009 Chevrolet Traverse News and Reviews

One of the rare Chevrolet Corvettes swallowed up by the sinkhole that opened up at the National Corvette Museum earlier this year has been restored. The 2009 Corvette ZR1, nicknamed "Blue Devil," has been made good as new, and the coupe made a pit stop in Las Vegas for the 2014 SEMA Show before heading back to its home at…

Initially the National Corvette Museum wanted to preserve the sinkhole that swallowed eight Chevrolet Corvettes on display inside the museum’s Skydome. But after reviewing price quotes to stabilize the sinkhole versus restoring the Skydome, it was deemed less expensive to fill it in. Additionally, just three of the eight affected Corvettes will be restored with Chevrolet volunteering to foot the…

Crews have rescued three of the eight Chevrolet Corvette models that were swallowed by a sinkhole that opened up under the Skydome of the National Corvette Museum in Bowling Green, Ky. last month. The first car rescued, a 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 “Blue Devil,” was able to start and drive away under its own power Monday just before noon.Upon initial…